The Rise of Non-Experts.

Image by G.Shewchuk

The world is awash with experts. Many self-proclaimed, others are true geniuses, fonts of profound knowledge. But what exactly is an “expert,” and what defines expertise? Is it just having mastery over the subject matter in a particular domain of study or inquiry? An expert in Mythology, for example, is intimately familiar with her subject matter through years of reviewing the literature, exploring hypotheses, sharing ideas with like-minded individuals and through personal reflection. Is this dedication and study to one area of interest the stuff that makes one an expert?

A reputation for being an authority or expert on a particular subject is achieved by adding new insight to an existing body of knowledge. When contributing to a body of knowledge in academia, this new knowledge’s novelty, originality, and integrity is rewarded with certification. A degree is conferred as a kind of proof that you know your subject matter well, so well in fact that you’re considered an authority in this domain so much so that others may consult you.

 Having expertise is an obvious prerequisite when dealing with complex problems that threaten one’s life. Aortic regurgitation, for example, is a problem that you want experts to solve. The optimal outcome is no regurgitation, with the patient living longer with a better quality of life. The constraints and variables that define this type of medical problem are well-known, well documented, and highly successful in guiding surgeons. And if a cardiologist encounters a patient with a heart problem that they have never seen before, they consult with other experts in their field. A heart problem may indicate something amiss somewhere else in the body, and it may involve more than just that muscle. Still, medical professionals are trained system thinkers, so they seek other experts who are more familiar with other body functions and systems. Experts work with other experts tied into the same network of interaction.

Expertise and expert reasoning is based on evidence. The veracity of this evidence is, in turn, dependent on repeated experimentation, documentation, dissemination, and peer review. To grow a body of knowledge and find new insights, as the saying goes, you’ll need to stand on the shoulders of giants. These are the individuals, experts who spent lifetimes in pursuit of knowledge. They know their stuff.

Problem Solving and Innovation

“I begin with an idea and then it becomes something else.” - Pablo Picasso.

Art Fry (co-inventor of the “stickie note”) defines innovation this way: “Innovation is where people switch to a new practice or use a new product.” Innovative thinking, however, does not require subject matter expertise. A new practice or process is a future state. It’s not here yet; there is no evidence for a new idea, and it’s still just a figment of someone’s imagination. It becomes real only when embodied, evaluated, and implemented. And it only becomes an innovation when adopted by others and used.

The simplicity of Picasso’s quote on ideation belies its profundity. Ideas are mutable, fluid, coalesce with other ideas, or splinter off in new directions and lead to new ideas. They are like rivers with tributaries – each rivulet finds its course when it flows over the contours of the land. Ideas lead to other ideas. Thinking is about constant revision. Writing is rewriting; thinking is rethinking. The process appears to flow in a particular direction, but you’ll never know where it may veer off or when it may run dry. Unconstrained ideation is blue-sky thinking or riffing on the ideas of others like an intellectual improv. Professional designers use the “Yes, and” principle in collaborative working sessions. You listen to a colleague expressing an idea and then add to it, “yes ( you make an interesting point) “and” (this also brings to mind…). This is not about expertise or experts sharing ideas. This is about listening for any nuance in the discussion that sparks an insight or leads to another idea. 

So-called professional thinkers (knowledge workers, designers, entrepreneurs, et al.) are just like any Josephine on the street, and the only difference is that they are adept at using mental models or creative thinking tools to structure their wild thoughts. On the other hand, Josephine may stumble upon a new idea without knowing how she got there.

Ideas naturally propagate, and they are also very social. Ideas are exposed to other forces as soon as they are expressed. The ideas of others buffet your ideas, and then they mutate – one idea begets another, and then another. Soon you have hundreds. Of course, this does not mean that they are all good; in fact, they are probably not very good at all. But that’s the point. Ideas are abundant, and it’s as common as quartz dug out of the ground. But without uncovering lots of this “raw material” first, you would never have enough to extract any precious metal.

Earlier in this article, I referred to the highly specialized field of cardiology. Solving problems in this domain requires deep knowledge and expertise. But what types of problems could a non-expert solve, even in this professional domain? What if the issue faced by the heart surgeon requires solutions that lie outside the field of her expertise? What if there was a particular kind of stitching technique used by, let’s say, ancient Egyptian cobblers, that if applied to her suturing work, could reduce tissue damage? How would she ever know this process exists? Expanding her knowledge of surgical techniques by researching more literature in cardiology would never get her closer to the idea of using an ancient stitching process. Only a non-expert, unaffiliated with a particular area of interest, could help.

When Expertise collides with Serendipity

“One sometimes finds, what one is not looking for. When I woke up just after dawn on September 28, 1928, I certainly didn't plan to revolutionize all medicine by discovering the world's first antibiotic, or bacteria killer. But I suppose that was exactly what I did.”— Alexander Fleming[26]

Fleming was indeed an expert, as was Picasso. Their process is, in fact, very similar, although artists are arguably more attuned to serendipity. It's worth noting that these "aha" moments, these sudden realizations that a unique solution has been discovered, are mere seconds in a lifetime of arduous work.

On the other hand, Picasso revels in starting experiments that have no constraints beyond the plane of the canvas or the pigment of his paints (cite). His first principles are the marks he makes on a page, both random and intentional. This is the way an artist works. The patterns "speak" to her as she engages in a dialogue with her canvas, and like many vibrant conversations, you never know what subject will come up next. The beginning does not give away the ending.

 Not everyone can capitalize on serendipity like Fleming, but most can begin a process like Picasso to start with an idea and see where it takes you.

A body of knowledge is never static. New theories, principles in any domain continually change and evolve. What was once a "fact" may now be fiction. When continuous investigation, experimentation and scrupulous inquiry collide with serendipity, suddenly your previous hypotheses are proved or disproved, or you stumbled upon something entirely new and so compelling that you change the direction of your inquiry.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein.

Everything is connected. If you can't find the information you're looking for, the internet must be down. Experts are blinded by what they know, and it's hard to escape your thoughts, the body of knowledge you've acquired over your lifetime.

Non-experts are not constrained by what they don't know. On the other hand, experts are acutely aware of what they don't know. And they spent a lifetime building knowledge based on evidence. Making wild assumptions is not the typical way forward for a "knowledge" professional to take a leap of faith.

Non-expects may not label their process or identify critical features of their problem-solving methods. When you're not constrained by what you know (or believe you know), your approach to solving a problem is also without limit. Just because you can't name your process – is it inductive or abductive reasoning, design thinking or integrative thinking? – does not mean you won't find an innovative solution.

Problem Solving is About Constraints.

A problem has edges. There are boundaries, a scope. What are we solving for? Are we looking for a new device, product or service to do XYZ? Instead, if the proposed solution does ABC, it’s not solving the right problem. Identifying the scope is step one. But the scope can change if you re-frame the problem. As a non-expert, you rely more heavily on intuition and are more influenced by your own biases, while experts suppress their biases and strive for objectivity. Experts are specialists who have deep knowledge in a particular field. But digging deeper into the same subject matter to find ways to solve a new problem will only uncover the usual suspects.

Although professional thinkers are trained to collaborate, their colleagues and associates play in the same sandbox. It stands to reason that if you’re a scientist investigating the efficacy of cancer drugs, your lab mates are usually looking in the same direction. How do you breach the boundaries of your knowledge when you’ve been steeped in it for a lifetime? Correcting your position or cleansing yourself of biases that naturally occur when gaining mastery over a particular body of knowledge is very difficult. Eliminating biases and group-think is the basis for building diverse teams, bringing together experts from various fields. Individual polyglots are rare. Teams of individuals with diverse experiences are not. Diversity, in all its forms, world views, preferences, aptitudes and interests, ensures that problem spaces are investigated from every angle. When various viewpoints collide, novel ideas are generated

sources

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/create-the-medici-effect

Maker, C. June, Aleene B. Nielson, and Judith A. Rogers. "Multiple intelligences: Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving." Teaching Exceptional Children 27.1 (1994): 4.

Mello, Abby L., and Joan R. Rentsch. "Cognitive diversity in teams: A multidisciplinary review." Small Group Research 46.6 (2015): 623-658.

Haven, Kendall F. (1994). Marvels of Science : 50 Fascinating 5-Minute Reads. Littleton, Colo: Libraries Unlimited. p. 182. ISBN 1-56308-159-8.